Anne Arundel County program shows progress fighting opioid epidemic – ABC2 News

Posted on by

Heroin addiction is a growing problem across the state. The number of deaths are staggering and with the influx of new and more potent opioids, like fentanyl and carefentanil, a solution to the epidemic doesn't seem to be in site.

Yet, a program in Anne Arundel County is making an impact on the deadly problem. The Safe Stations program started two months ago.

Any county resident battling addiction can come to any county fire station and ask for help in their journey to recovery. Soon after the announcement, Jenna Keefer walked into a fire station.

After seeking help,Keefer says she's more in control of her life. She said heroin isn't making the decisions on how she lives her life now.

"I wanted to do something, my life was no way to live. So I got up and I took myself there and it was the best decision I ever made," she said.

Keefer may have been the first person to walk into an Anne Arundel County fire station, but she isn't alone. Officials say 55 others in just the first 60 days have sought help from the Safe Stations.

"So everything just snowballed," she said. "This is definitely not where I saw myself when I was a little girl but It happened and it happens to some really good people."

This year in Anne Arundel County alone, 530 people have overdosed on heroin, 59 have lost their lives.

"You either get clean or you die. I knew that's where my life was headed. I was going to end up dying," Keefer said.

Like many addicts, Keefer had tried to get help before.

"I looked and I looked and I couldn't find it," she said. "I had people turning me down daily. I was so distraught and at the end I thought I wasn't going to have a way out of that life."

Anne Arundel County is trying to make it easier for addict to "find their way out of the life." When you go to a Safe Station, even with drugs or paraphernalia, you won't be arrested. The police will come and discard the drugs, while the firefighters will help you start your fight against heroin.

"They welcomed me with open arms. When I walked into that fire station and I had all the EMT's all the fire fighters just right at my beck and call. They took my vitals they talked me through this process, they were really comforting and made me feel comfortable about what I was doing. They made that transition a lot easier for me," Keefer said.

Sixty days ago, life for Keefer was dark as it's ever been. Now, thanks to the Safe Stations program, she finds herself in a better place.

"I never thought I would be here. Life today is amazing. Life today is amazing. I'm learning to love my life again," she said.

Of the 56 people who came in looking for help, it's not certain how many are going to beat their addiction for good, but what is certain is there are 56 more people that were given a chance by the county to get their lives back together, away from the disaster that it was under heroin.

Excerpt from:

Anne Arundel County program shows progress fighting opioid epidemic - ABC2 News

U.S. Billionaires | Apocalypse | Billionaires Buying Land – The Real Deal Magazine

Posted on by

Where billionaires are stockpiling land for the apocalypse: Map

Billionaires are making significant land grabs in Americas heartland

June 19, 2017 03:30PM

Billionaires land grabs (Forbes)

From TRD New York: When the apocalypse arrives, life goes on. Thats the possibility some are preparing for, at least.

U.S. billionairesare making significant land grabs in Americas heartland, where the climate is mild and the locations are conducive to survivalism and living on the land. The Midwest ishome to several fortified shelters and vacation homes where the super-richcould happily live out their post-doomsday (or retirement) days.

Reid Hoffman, the cofounder of LinkedIn and a notable investor,told The New Yorker earlier this year he estimated more than 50% of Silicon Valley billionaires had bought some level of apocalypse insurance, like a bunker, Forbes reported.

Fortified shelters, built to withstand catastrophic events from viral epidemic to nuclear war, seem to be experiencing a wave of interest in general as hints of a nuclear conflict ramp up.

Real estate developersare capitalizing on the moment with luxuryunderground doomsday shelters that cost as much as$3 million. These post-apocalyptic homes, often built onretired military bases or in missile silos, includeluxury amenities and safety featureslike nuclear blast doors, armored trucks, and massive storesof food and water.

The map below reveals where American billionaires are stockpiling land that could be used in the apocalypse. [BI]

Link:

U.S. Billionaires | Apocalypse | Billionaires Buying Land - The Real Deal Magazine

The Nihilism of Julian Assange – The New York Review of Books

Posted on by

Risk

a documentary film directed by Laura Poitras

About forty minutes into Risk, Laura Poitrass messy documentary portrait of Julian Assange, the filmmaker addresses the viewer from off-camera. This is not the film I thought I was making, she says. I thought I could ignore the contradictions. I thought they were not part of the story. I was so wrong. They are becoming the story.

By the time she makes this confession, Poitras has been filming Assange, on and off, for six years. He has gone from a bit player on the international stage to one of its dramatic leads. His gleeful interference in the 2016 American presidential electionfirst with the release of e-mails poached from the Democratic National Committee, timed to coincide with, undermine, and possibly derail Hillary Clintons nomination at the Democratic Convention, and then with the publication of the private e-mail correspondence of Clintons adviser John Podesta, which was leaked, drip by drip, in the days leading up to the election to maximize the damage it might inflict on Clintonelevated Assanges profile and his influence.

And then this spring, it emerged that Nigel Farage, the Trump adviser and former head of the nationalist and anti-immigrant UK Independence Party (UKIP) who is now a person of interest in the FBI investigation of the Trump campaigns ties to Russia, was meeting with Assange. To those who once saw him as a crusader for truth and accountability, Assange suddenly looked more like a Svengali and a willing tool of Vladimir Putin, and certainly a man with no particular affection for liberal democracy. Yet those tendencies were present all along.

In 2010, when Poitras began work on her film, Assanges four-year-old website, WikiLeaks, had just become the conduit for hundreds of thousands of classified American documents revealing how we prosecuted the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including a graphic video of American soldiers in an Apache helicopter mowing down a group of unarmed Iraqis, as well as for some 250,000 State Department diplomatic cables. All had been uploaded to the WikiLeaks site by an army private named Bradleynow ChelseaManning.

The genius of the WikiLeaks platform was that documents could be leaked anonymously, with all identifiers removed; WikiLeaks itself didnt know who its sources were unless leakers chose to reveal themselves. This would prevent anyone at WikiLeaks from inadvertently, or under pressure, disclosing a sources identity. Assanges goal was to hold powerstate power, corporate power, and powerful individualsaccountable by offering a secure and easy way to expose their secrets. He called this radical transparency. Mannings bad luck was to tell a friend about the hack, and the friend then went to the FBI. For a long time, though, Assange pretended not to know who provided the documents, even when there was evidence that he and Manning had been e-mailing before the leaks.

Though the contradictions were not immediately obvious to Poitras as she trained her lens on Assange, they were becoming so to others in his orbit. WikiLeakss young spokesperson in those early days, James Ball, has recounted how Assange tried to force him to sign a nondisclosure statement that would result in a 12 million penalty if it were breached. [I was] woken very early by Assange, sitting on my bed, prodding me in the face with a stuffed giraffe, immediately once again pressuring me to sign, Ball wrote. Assange continued to pester him like this for two hours. Assanges impulse towards free speech, according to Andrew OHagan, the erstwhile ghostwriter of Assanges failed autobiography, is only permissible if it adheres to his message. His pursuit of governments and corporations was a ghostly reverse of his own fears for himself. That was the big secret with him: he wanted to cover up everything about himself except his fame.

Meanwhile, some of the company he was keeping while Poitras was filming also might have given her pause. His association with Farage had already begun in 2011 when Farage was head of UKIP. Assanges own WikiLeaks Party of Australia was aligned with the white nationalist Australia First Party, itself headed by an avowed neo-Nazi, until political pressure forced it to claim that association to be an administrative error.

Most egregious, perhaps, was Assanges collaboration with Israel Shamir, an unapologetic anti-Semite and Putin ally to whom Assange handed over all State Department diplomatic cables from the Manning leak relating to Belarus (as well as to Russia, Eastern Europe, and Israel). Shamir then shared these documents with members of the regime of Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, who appeared to use them to imprison and torture members of the opposition. This prompted the human rights group Index on Censorship to ask WikiLeaks to explain its relationship to Shamir, and to look into reports that Shamirs access to the WikiLeaks US diplomatic cables [aided in] the prosecution of civil society activists within Belarus. WikiLeaks called these claims rumors and responded that it would not be investigating them. Most people with principled stances dont survive for long, Assange tells Poitras at the beginning of the film. Its not clear if hes talking about himself or others.

Then there is the matter of redaction. After the Manning cache came in, WikiLeaks partnered with a number of legacy newspapers, including The New York Times and The Guardian, to bring the material out into the world. While initially going along with those publications policies of removing identifying information that could put innocent people in harms way and excluding material that could not be verified, Assange soon balked. According to the Guardian journalists David Leigh and Luke Harding in WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assanges War on Secrecy, their 2011 postmortem of their contentious collaboration with Assange on the so-called Afghan war logsthe portion of the Manning leaks concerning the conflict in Afghanistanthe WikiLeaks founder was unmoved by entreaties to scrub the files of anything that could point to Afghan villagers who might have had any contact with American troops. He considered such editorial intervention to contaminate the evidence.

Well theyre informants. So, if they get killed, theyve got it coming to them. They deserve it, Leigh and Harding report Assange saying to a group of international journalists. And while Assange has denied making these comments, WikiLeaks released troves of material in which the names of Afghan civilians had not been redacted, an action that led Amnesty International, the Open Society Institute, the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commissionto issue a joint rebuke. The group Reporters Without Borders also criticized WikiLeaks for its incredible irresponsibility in not removing the names. This was in 2010, not long after Poitras approached Assange about making a film.

Lack of redactionor of any real effort to separate disclosures of public importance from those that might simply put private citizens at riskcontinued to be a flashpoint for WikiLeaks, its supporters, and its critics. In July 2016, presumably when Poitras was still working on Risk, WikiLeaks dumped nearly 300,000 e-mails it claimed were from Turkeys ruling AKP party. Those files, it turned out, were not from AKP heavyweights but, rather, from ordinary people writing to the party, often with their personal information included.

Worse, WikiLeaks also posted links to a set of huge voter databases, including one with the names, addresses, and other contact information for nearly every woman in Turkey. It also apparently published the files of psychiatric patients, gay men, and rape victims in Saudi Arabia. Soon after that, WikiLeaks began leaking bundles of hacked Democratic National Committee e-mails, also full of personal information, including cell phone and credit card numbers, leading Wired magazine to declare that WikiLeaks Has Officially Lost the Moral High Ground.

Poitras doesnt say, but perhaps this is when she, too, began to take account of the contradictions that eventually turned her film away from hagiography toward something more nuanced. Though she intermittently interjects herself into the filmto relate a dream shes had about Assange; to say that he is brave; to say that she thinks he doesnt like her; to say that she doesnt trust himthis is primarily a film of scenes, episodic and nearly picaresque save for the unappealing vanity of its hero. (There is very little in the film about the work of WikiLeaks itself.)

Here is Julian, holed up in a supporters estate in the English countryside while under house arrest, getting his hair cut by a gaggle of supporters while watching a video of Japanese women in bikinis dancing. Here is Julian in a car with that other famous leaker, Daniel Ellsberg. Here is Julian instructing Sarah Harrison, his WikiLeaks colleague, to call Secretary Clinton at the State Department and tell her she needs to talk to Julian Assange. Here is Julian walking in the woods with one of his lawyers, certain that a bird in a nearby tree is actually a man with a camera. Here is Julian being interviewed, for no apparent reason, by the singer Lady Gaga:

Lady Gaga: Whats your favorite food?

Assange: Lets not pretend Im a normal person. I am obsessed with political struggle. Im not a normal person.

Lady Gaga: Tell me how you feel?

Assange: Why does it matter how I feel? Who gives a damn? I dont care how I feel.

Lady Gaga: Do you ever feel like just fucking crying?

Assange: No.

And here is Julian, in conversation with Harrison, who is also his girlfriend:

Assange: My profile didnt take off till the sex case. [It was] very high in media circles and intelligence circles, but it didnt really take off, as if I was a globally recognized household name, it wasnt till the sex case. So I was joking to one of our people, sex scandal every six months.

Harrison: That was me you were joking to. And I died a little bit inside.

Assange: Come on. Its a platform.

The sex case to which Assange is referring is the one that began in the summer of 2010 on a trip to Sweden. While there, Assange had sex with two young supporters a few days apart, both of whom said that what started out as consensual ended up as assault. Eventually, after numerous back-and-forths, the Swedish court issued an international arrest warrant for Assange, who was living in England, to compel him to return to Sweden for questioning. Assange refused, declaring that this was a honey pot trap orchestrated by the CIA to extradite him to the United States for publishing the Manning leaks.

After a short stay in a British jail, subsequent house arrest, and many appeals, Assange was ordered by the UK Supreme Court, in May 2012, to be returned to Sweden to answer the rape and assault charges. Assange, however, claiming that there was a secret warrant for his arrest in the United States (though the extradition treaty between Sweden and the US prohibits extradition for a political offense), had made other arrangements: he had applied for, and was granted, political asylum in Ecuador. Because the British government refused safe passage there, Assange took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Poitras was with Assange in an undisclosed location in London as the British high court in Parliament Square was issuing its final ruling. The camera was rolling and no one was speakingit was all sealed lips and pantomimeas Assange dyed his hair red and dressed in bikers leather in order to make a mad dash on a motorcycle across town to the embassy. (Theres a sorrowful moment when his mother, who, inexplicably, is in the room, too, writes I love you, honey, on a piece of notebook paper and hands it and a pen to her son and he waves her off.)

This past January, five years into Assanges self-imposed exile, he promised to finally leave the embassy and turn himself over to the Americans if President Obama were to grant clemency to Chelsea Manning, who had been sentenced to thirty-five years in prison for giving documents to WikiLeaks. Obama did; Assange didnt. In May, the same month Manning left prison, Sweden dropped all charges against Assange. He remains in the embassy.

The sex case, as Assange called it, figures prominently in Risk. It serves to reveal his casual and sometimes noxious misogyny, and it is a foil for him to conflate the personal with the political, using the political to get out of answering to the personal, and the personal to claim that hes the victim here. Who is after you, Mr. Assange? Lady Gaga asks. Formally there are more than twelve United States intelligence organizations, Assange tells her, reeling off a list of acronyms. So basically a whole fucking bunch of people in America, she says, and then he mentions that the Australians, the British, and the Swedes are also pursuing him.

Whether this is true or not has long been a matter of dispute. The Swedes definitely wanted him to return to their country, and the British were eager for him to abide by the Swedish warrant, and he made no friends in the Obama administration. Following the Manning leaks in 2010, the attorney general, Eric Holder, made it clear that the Department of Justice, along with the Department of Defense, was investigating whether Assange could be charged under the 1917 Espionage Act, though no warrant was ever issued publicly. Hillary Clinton, then the secretary of state, said that WikiLeakss release of the diplomatic cables was an attack on the international community [and] we are taking aggressive steps to hold responsible those who stole this information. Still, Assanges self-exile in the embassy, which the United Nations condemned as an arbitrary detention, was predicated on his belief that the Americans were lying in wait, ready at any moment to haul him to the US, where his actions might land him in prison for a very long time, or even lead to his execution.

All this was well before Assange was accused of using WikiLeaks as a front for Russian agents working to undermine American democracy during the 2016 presidential election. And it was before candidate Trump declared his love for the website and then watched as Assange released a huge arsenal of CIA hacking tools into the public domain less than two months into Trumps presidency. This, in turn, prompted the new CIA director, Mike Pompeo, who appeared to have no problem with WikiLeaks when it was sharing information detrimental to the Democrats, to declare WikiLeaks a hostile intelligence service, and the new attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to prepare a warrant for Assanges arrest. If the Justice Department wasnt going after Assange before, it appears to be ready to do so now.

Despite Assanges vocal disdain for his former collaborators at The New York Times and The Guardian, his association with those journalists and their newspapers is probably what so far has kept him from being indicted and prosecuted in the United States. As Glenn Greenwald told the journalist Amy Goodman recently, Eric Holders Justice Department could not come up with a rationale to prosecute WikiLeaks that would not also implicate the news organizations with which it had worked; to do so, Greenwald said, would have been too much of a threat to press freedom, even for the Obama administration. The same cannot be said with confidence about the Trump White House, which perceives the Times, and national news organizations more generally, as adversaries. Yet if the Sessions Justice Department goes after Assange, it likely will be on the grounds that WikiLeaks is not real journalism.

This charge has dogged WikiLeaks from the start. For one thing, it doesnt employ reporters or have subscribers. For another, it publishes irregularly and, because it does not actively chase secrets but aggregates those that others supply, often has long gaps when it publishes nothing at all. Perhaps most confusing to some observers, WikiLeakss rudimentary website doesnt look anything like a New York Times or a Washington Post, even in those papers more recent digital incarnations.

Nonetheless, there is no doubt that WikiLeaks publishes the information it receives much like those traditional news outlets. When it burst on the scene in 2010, it was embraced as a new kind of journalism, one capable not only of speaking truth to power, but of outsmarting power and its institutional gatekeepers. And the fact is, there is no consensus on what constitutes real journalism. As Adam Penenberg points out, The best we have comes from laws and proposed legislation which protect reporters from being forced to divulge confidential sources in court. In crafting those shield laws, legislators have had to grapple with the nebulousness of the profession.

The danger of carving off WikiLeaks from the rest of journalism, as the attorney general may attempt to do, is that ultimately it leaves all publications vulnerable to prosecution. Once an exception is made, a rule will be too, and the rule in this case will be that the government can determine what constitutes real journalism and what does not, and which publications, films, writers, editors, and filmmakers are protected under the First Amendment, and which are not.

This is where censorship begins. No matter what one thinks of Julian Assange personally, or of WikiLeakss reckless publication practices, like it or not, they have become the litmus test of our commitment to free speech. If the government successfully prosecutes WikiLeaks for publishing classified information, why not, then, the failed New York Times, as the president likes to call it, or any news organization or journalist? Its a slippery slope leading to a sheer cliff. That is the real risk being presented here, though Poitras doesnt directly address it.

Near the end of Risk, after Poitras has shown Assange a rough cut of the film, he tells her that he views it as a severe threat to my freedom and I must act accordingly. He doesnt say what he will do, but when the film was released this spring, Poitras was loudly criticized by Assanges supporters for changing it from the heros journey she debuted last year at Cannes to something more critical, complicated, and at best ambivalent about the man. Yet ambivalence is the most honest thing about the film. It is the emotion Assange often stirs up in those who support the WikiLeaks mission but are disturbed by its chief missionary.

This ambivalence, too, is what makes Risk such a different film from Citizen Four (2014), Poitrass intense, resolute, Oscar-winning documentary about Edward Snowden. While Snowden and Assange are often twinned in the press and in the public imagination, these films demonstrate how false that equivalence is. Snowden leaked classified NSA documents that he said showed rampant unconstitutional intrusions by the government into the private lives of innocent citizens, doing so through a careful process of vetting and selective publication by a circle of hand-picked journalists. He identified himself as the leaker and said he wanted to provoke a public debate about government spying and the right of privacy. Assange, by contrast, appears to have no interest in anyones privacy but his own and his sources. Private communications, personal information, intimate conversations are all fair game to him. He calls this nihilism freedom, and in so doing elevates it to a principle that gives him license to act without regard to consequences.

The mission Assange originally set out to accomplish, thoughproviding a safe way for whistleblowers to hold power accountablehas, in the past few years, eclipsed WikiLeaks itself. Almost every major newspaper, magazine, and website now has a way for leakers to upload secret information, most through an anonymous, online, open-source drop box called Secure Drop. Based on coding work done by the free speech advocate Aaron Swartz before his death and championed by the Freedom of the Press Foundationon whose board both Laura Poitras and Edward Snowden sit, and which is a conduit for donations to WikiLeaks among other organizationsSecure Drop gives leakers the option of choosing where to upload their material. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker, Forbes, and The Intercept, to name just a few, all have a way for people to pass secrets along to journalists.

It is not yet known why a National Security Agency contractor named Reality Leigh Winner didnt use a digital drop box when she leaked a classified NSA document to The Intercept in May outlining how Russian cyber spies hacked into American election software. Unlike Edward Snowden, who carefully covered his tracks before leaking his NSA cache to Glenn Greenwald (before Greenwald started The Intercept) and Laura Poitras (who filmed Snowdens statement of purpose, in which he identified himself as the leaker), Winner used a printer at work to copy the document, which she then mailed to The Intercept. What she and those at The Intercept who dealt with the document did not know, apparently, is that this government printer, like many printers, embeds all documents with small dots that reveal the serial number of the machine and the time the document was printed. After The Intercept contacted the NSA to verify the document, the FBI needed only a few days to find Winner and arrest her.

We will soon get to witness what the Trump administration does to those who leak classified information, and to those who publish it. WikiLeaks, apparently, will be providing the government with an assist. It is offering a $10,000 reward for the public exposure of the reporter whose ignorance or carelessness led the FBI to Reality Winners door. Such are the vagaries of radical transparency.

Follow this link:

The Nihilism of Julian Assange - The New York Review of Books

Review: Prodigy HNIC – SPIN

Posted on by

This review of ProdigysH.N.I.C. originally appearedin the November 2000 issue of SPIN. In the light of Prodigys passing, we are republishing it here.

On his 1994 debut,Illmatic, Nas painted New York Citys Queensbridge housing projects as a hard-knock hood as rough as any in the Bronx or Brooklyn. In his wake, QB natives like AZ, Nature, and, most potently, Mobb Deep came up perpetuating the mythology of The Bridge with stark rats-in-a-cage tales of project violence and petty thuggery. But Nas went the way of diamond-studded self-parody, leaving Mobb Deepwho always put guns before cheddarto keep their hometowns blood-stained legacy alive. No surprise then that on his solo debut, Mobb Deeps Prodigy consumes the fury and desperation of his environment and spits out the cold, concentrated ghetto the Mobb made infamous on 1996sHell on Earth.

As much a point of view than a place of origin, Mobb Deep/Prodigys Queensbridge is inhabited by killers with dry blood on their face who came out of the womb not giving a fuck, andH.N.I.C.s production (handled by the Alchemist, Rockwilder, Mobb Deeps Havoc, and others) is equally harshsteely, stark, infused with the rowdiness of a party you might leave with glass all in your nostrils. Prodigy fans should have a high tolerance for such gory details. Theyve been numbed by four Mobb Deep albums worth of guns and drugs, and like scores of post-Illmatic dramas,H.N.I.C. is the work of a thug shoving his steelmicrophone/pistoldown your throat. But where Nas was the kid whod seen just enough of the streets to dream of breaking free, P is the walking dead. Not even money matters. On You Can Never Feel My Pain, he attributes his nihilism to the permanent physical suffering caused by a lifelong battle with sickle-cell anemia, giving lines like Shoot me / Who gives a fuck, really? a harsh realism most reality rappers would kill (or be killed) for.H.N.I.C. is titillating; its rugged beats and brooding rhymes rival some of the best in the Deep canon, even if they dont expand the vocab. The dread is overwhelming. Nas Bridge was a place to survive and possibly escape. Prodigys is only a place to die.

View post:

Review: Prodigy HNIC - SPIN

‘Get a Grip’: Fox’s Outnumbered Swipes at CNN’s Acosta for Complaints About Off-Camera Gaggle – Mediaite

Posted on by

The hosts of Fox News Outnumbered today discussed whether on-camera White House press briefings are still necessary, and they even got in some shots at CNNs Jim Acosta for his complaints about yesterdays off-camera, no-audio gaggle.

Acosta yesterday appeared on CNN multiple times after the gaggle to tear into the White House for stonewalling questions and even going so far as to say that Sean Spicer is kind of useless now.

After showing video of Acosta going off yesterday, the Outnumbered hosts joked around a bit and one of them said that looked like a tantrum.

Kennedy weighed in by saying this:

Jim Acosta needs to eat a ham sandwich because it looks like his sugar was a little bit low. You know, people like that need to get a grip on themselves. And unfortunately, weve lost all sense of reality and rationalism. Yes, we do need to hold the White House accountable regardless of who the occupant is, but also, the press needs to be at least somewhat objective.

Melissa Francis said that the motivations of some in the press for wanting these briefings are less about getting answers for the American people and more about getting fodder and good content of them getting combative with Spicer.

Watch above, via Fox News.

[image via screengrab]

Follow Josh Feldman on Twitter: @feldmaniac

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

See the original post here:

'Get a Grip': Fox's Outnumbered Swipes at CNN's Acosta for Complaints About Off-Camera Gaggle - Mediaite

Collaboration and communication: how science and environmentalists can fight climate change together – The Ecologist (blog)

Posted on by

Lucy EJ Woods

20th June, 2017

Scientists finding a "joint language" they can use to communicate with environmentalists, would also aid climate science literacy

Science: the global endeavour of humans to understand the universe. People carrying out this endeavour - scientists - are defined by the UK Science Council as: "someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, making a hypothesis and testing it, to gain and share understanding and knowledge."

The intent to share scientific research is a crucial distinction; it defines science as a public good, as much about method as it is about values.

At a pro-science march in London, climate scientist Chris Rapley, say science is about valuing "investigation and internationalism."

Marching in Berlin, Jurgen Kurths, a physicist and mathematician at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research says "science is international...We collaborate with China and Russia and the UK. We are all international scientists; there is only one physics and one climatology, not, say, an English one and a German one."

Rapley and Kurths marched because they felt the values of investigation and international collaboration are under attack.

The US is eradicating environmental science, the UK is "sick of experts", and turning to climate change deniers for leadership. Be it pulling out of the Paris agreement, or renewable energy cuts, "there is a strong move in the English-speaking world against rationalism," says Rapley, "we must defend against it."

This need to defend rationalism has morphed into a global pro-science' movement. Dashing the introverted stereotype, the scientific community donned lab coats, painted placards and chanted in the streets. Marches took place in 600 cities across the world, from Manilla to Amsterdam. Kurths says he couldn't remember a time before the nuclear weapons demonstrations in the 1950s when scientists united to protest in such large numbers.

Taking place on 22 April, the marches deliberately coincided with Earth Day. Many placards and chants focused on climate change - with environmentalists marching alongside climate scientists.

The pro-science movement "speaks to the ethos" of environmental organisations like Greenpeace, says Paul Johnston, principal scientist at Greenpeace Research Laboratories.

Grassroots environmental group, Friends of the Earth (FoE) backs "the purpose" of the pro-science movement "100%" says Mike Childs, head of science, policy and research. This is because FoE frequently works alongside scientists, "on a case-by-case basis...to make sure we get our facts right," says Childs.

As well as working on projects together, there are shared values between environmentalists and scientists; FoE is "aligned with the value of international collaboration" and has "always been informed by scientific research, together with the values of social justice and intergenerational justice," says Childs. Greenpeace is also "committed as an organisation to working collaboratively with people across the world," says Johnston.

Seeing eye to eye

But while there are good relationships and shared values, "that doesn't mean we see eye to eye with all scientists," says Childs, "not all scientists consider the social and economic impact of their research."

There are disagreements on a multitude of issues between scientists and environmentalists, from fracking and pesticides, to nuclear power and GMOs.

Whether caused by hypes of world-saving' technology, corporate sponsored science or vested interests, scientific disputes should not be ignored, says Childs, "we mustn't pretend that science' has one clear view."

Using GMOs as an example, Childs says although GMOs are scientifically proven to be safe for human consumption, there are still important questions environmental groups ask, such as, "who has control of our food chain?"

These differences in approach seem to balloon into conflict most often when scientific work is translated into policy. Like when the UK government championed fracking on the basis of one scientific paper (which has since been discredited), or when US scientists caution themselves on researching geoengineering, in fear that their work is misused to justify delayed action on climate change. Scientists "need to inform policy, but they also need to stand up and say if a policy is not informed by the best science," says Johnston.

Scientists need to lose the "naive", "ivory tower" perception of not getting involved in politics, as "once you've informed policy, you are involved in the political process...[science] defacto becomes political, you can't get away from it...Value-free science doesn't exist," says Johnston.

Rapley puts much of the confusion between environmentalists and scientists - and politicians and the public - down to communication. "The classic way science delivers its message is doomed to fail," says Rapley.

"We need to engage people and engage emotions; generally, scientists strive to eliminate emotions, but the subject of climate change can be alarming and scary. The story of climate change has clearly raised anxiety and cognitive dissonance, which has then been [politically] exploited."

While there is "an obligation to speak up" about scientific findings such as polar ice melting, says Rapley, scientists should also offer their opinions publicly, as "an off-duty comment."

"The role of science in society is to offer positive answers to positive questions. Not to use scientific authority to muddle statements. If I'm asked what is dangerous climate change, for example, I can't answer as a scientist [as danger is subjective], but I can give my own opinion, as a human," says Rapley.

To continue raising the public's awareness and literacy of environmental issues, both movements have a role to make their work "accessible and truthful," says Johnston. "How does their work relate to the public? What captivates [the public]?" Environmentalists and scientists, Johnston says, should be repeatedly asking these questions to avoid some of the "nightmare" of explaining the nuances within climate science.

Scientists finding a "joint language" they can use to communicate with environmentalists would also aid climate science literacy, says Kurths.

One barrier Johnston identifies as halting this joint language is a reluctance from mainstream academics to be associated, or funded, by environmental groups such as Greenpeace. Scientists should reconsider, and "do more work" with environmentalists, says Kurths.

Both scientists and environmentalists need to "look more deeply at the interests related to environment and climate change," to identify overlapping values, says Johnston. Collaboration, on the basis of shared interests, could lead to more scientific solutions and greater political will in the fight against climate change.

If neither the environmentalist movement, nor the pro-science movement is working to identify and communicate based on shared values, says Johnston, "people don't realise this synergy exists, and then they don't exploit it."

This Author

Lucy EJ Woods is a freelance journalist specialising in energy and environment reporting. Currently based in London she has reported on environmental issues from Russia, Mongolia, Indonesia, Nepal and the Philippines and has been published in various titles, including The Guardian, Climate Home, Mongabay and many others. You can find more of her work at:lucyejwoods.com, or follow her on Twitter:@lucyejwoods

Read more here:

Collaboration and communication: how science and environmentalists can fight climate change together - The Ecologist (blog)

People should put their time, energy into fixing America – Victoria Advocate

Posted on by
People should put their time, energy into fixing America
Victoria Advocate
Humanism, as defined in Wikipedia, is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over acceptance ...

Read the original here:

People should put their time, energy into fixing America - Victoria Advocate

The Gospel According to Thomas Jefferson … – The Times Herald – The Times Herald

Posted on by

The Gospel According to Thomas Jefferson, Charles Dickens & Count Leo Tolstoy: Discord runs through July 9 at Lantern Theater, 10th and Ludlow streets in Philadelphia. For tickets call 215-829-0395 or go to http://www.lanterntheater.org

So youve worked closely with Americas most famous atheist for two decades and decide to write a play. What would you choose to dramatize?

Well, how about imagining three other equally famous men a deist, a Christian anarchist and a skeptic who leaned strongly towards Unitarianism who are locked in a room thats not Hell but is definitely on the Other Side and have them try to figure out why theyre there? Oh, and make the title really long so people will remember it!

After a life-threatening illness, Scott Carter (longtime producer and writer for the acerbic Bill Maher) started working on a play about spirituality and chose these men: Declaration of Independence author and former President Thomas Jefferson, Victorian literary superstar Charles Dickens and the passionate, irascible author of War and Peace Leo Tolstoy. In The Gospel According to Thomas Jefferson, Charles Dickens and Count Leo Tolstoy: Discord (hereafter referred to as The Gospel) we are treated to a delightful character study of three extraordinary men thinly disguised as a philosophical debate about faith.

The play begins as the three men are thrust into a white walled room with a door that locks behind them, a table, three chairs and a mirror (the audience) as the fourth wall, a room that could easily be in the same neighborhood as the purgatorial bus stop C.S. Lewis created in his novel The Great Divorce. In Lewis book the recently deceased jostle and snarl at each other waiting for a celestial bus to take them to Heaven.

Advertisement

But in this room, where Leo (Dont call me Count) Tolstoy says the free thinkers are trapped like three Jonahs in a whales belly the disputes are mostly intellectual. Naturally, they dont like being locked up and want to find a way out and on. As the three captives exchange their stories it becomes clear they all were drawn to the original teachings of Jesus, to the point where each man developed his own version of the Gospel.

In the table drawer they find blank journals and pens Someone obviously wants them to use. So they get to work creating a new Gospel and quickly discover that they cant agree on much of anything.

Jefferson was the rational deist who famously wrote, it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. He believed in a Supreme Being but not in the Trinity. Dickens was a publicly devout skeptic who often criticized what he saw as religious extremism in Britain. Tolstoy in his later years became an unorthodox Christian who based his beliefs in Christs message of nonviolence.

Can the three geniuses work together to get out of their impasse? Remember that they are all writers. Carter ensures its great fun to watch them try by having each man reveal contradictions in his spirituality. Jefferson was the defender of rationalism and moral sense who couldnt give up the six hundred slaves that ran his beloved home Monticello, even after death. Dickens and Tolstoys ambivalence about the class system in their countries was reflected in their own shaky marriages.

Gregory Isaacs cool veneer of self-confidence and unquestioned leadership as Jefferson keeps the more emotional outbursts of Dickens (Brian McCann) and Tolstoy (Andrew Criss) in check (at least for a while). McCann, who was the conniving Roman tribune Menenius in Lanterns splendid production of Coriolanus this season pushes hard on Carters view of Dickens as a clever, conceited self-promoter. Hes the spark of the production and fun to watch but Dickens was surely a more complex character than this preening egomaniac who spends much of his time trying to get a reaction from the tightly wound and self-righteous Tolstoy.

Director James Ljames, ubiquitous on the local theater scene as playwright, director and actor has the latters appreciation for giving each character a chance for big and small moments that resonate. Despite the seemingly cramped conditions of this small room packed with so much self-regard, Ljames has choreographed the actors well and they parade around and onto the table and chairs in a small but boisterous ballet of braggadocio and big ideas.

Here is the original post:

The Gospel According to Thomas Jefferson ... - The Times Herald - The Times Herald

YouTube says LGBTQ+ video censorship won’t happen again – Engadget

Posted on by

YouTube apologized after getting hit by allegations that it censors LGBTQ+ content and fixed the bug that apparently caused the issue. Now, the website has apologized yet again and updated its policies in an effort to reaffirm its "commitment that YouTube is a place where all voices can be heard." YouTube chief Susan Wojcicki said she and her team talked to lesbian, gay, bi, trans and queer/questioning creators, employees and volunteers to get feedback on the platform's policies. As a result, the company has "broadened Restricted Mode guidelines to ensure that non-graphic, personal accounts of difficult events are available."

In a blog post, the CEO wrote:

"For example, personal accounts of individuals who suffered discrimination or were impacted by violence for being part of a protected group will now be included in Restricted Mode, provided they don't contain graphic language or content. Soon we'll have new content in Creator Academy to describe in detail how to make videos that will meet the criteria for Restricted Mode."

If you look at the website's guidelines, you'll now find this section:

"Some educational, straightforward content about sexual education, affection, or identity may be included in Restricted Mode, as well as kissing or affection that's not overly sexualized or the focal point of the video."

...

"We know there is a risk that some important content could be lost if we were to apply these rules without context. We value stories where individuals discuss their personal experiences and share their emotions. Sharing stories about facing discrimination, opening up about your sexuality, and confronting and overcoming discrimination is what makes YouTube great, and we will work to ensure those stories are included in Restricted Mode. "

The Google-owned website admits that the mode might still not work perfectly despite the tweaks that it made, but it promises that its systems will get better at identifying entries that should and shouldn't be filtered out over time. In addition to making guideline changes, YouTube is introducing a permanent spot on its US spotlight channel for LGBTQ+ videos to be refreshed weekly throughout the year. It's also teaming up with The Trevor Project to offer crisis intervention to members of the community and to prevent LGBTQ+ youth suicides.

See the article here:

YouTube says LGBTQ+ video censorship won't happen again - Engadget

In India, Raids Targeting a Prominent News Agency Spark Censorship Fears – The Diplomat

Posted on by

Was a raid on NDTVs offices earlier this month politically motivated?

In the two weeks since Indias Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) launched a raid on the offices and the homes of NDTV staffin India, an important conversation regarding government interference in the media has resurfaced. The atmosphere surrounding the issue remainsmurky and longstanding suspicions of the strong nexus between the investigation agency and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party have once more been brought to the fore.

On June 5, the CBI conducted its raid, prompting a statement from NDTV declaring that it was based on unproven complaints from a disgruntled former employee. The complaint, on the basis of a loan default, was further dismissed as baseless by the organization, which furnished the proof of repayment along with its statement.

Furthermore, the implication that this raid was based on a year-old complaint that was private in nature sparked concerns that it was politically motivated. Days prior to the raid, as several members of the Indian media have been quick to point out, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Partys spokesperson Sambhit Patra was asked to leave an NDTV debate for his accusations against the channel in the face of criticism.

Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting Rajyavardhan Rathore responded to this by saying that while the government was committed to protecting freedom of expression, it was also responsible for preserving the law of the land. While voices within the media have indicated that there may well be a case for this raid and that it was premature to cast this as retaliation for government criticism, several prominent members have a different opinion.

The Editors Guild of India has since issued a statement implicatingthis move as a violation ofthe principle of the freedom of the press within a democracy, pegging it as a possible attempt to silence the media. The Press Club of India subsequently organized a meeting to protest the raid. The CBI, in turn, responded with the argument that NDTV was not singled out in this raid process. Explaining that this raid was not about loan default as much as a larger list of violations of banking sector guidelines, the organization placed this investigation along the spectrum of a long list of others on the issue of banking fraud.

However, the absence of a preliminary inquiry ahead of this raid has not silenced the criticism. The Press Club meeting for instance was the site of incensed conversation. Prominent media figures like Kuldip Nayyar and Arun Shourie even discussed parallels between the current governments attitude towards the media and the time of Emergency under former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The ensuing discussion expressed worry at the majoritarian tendencies of the government, a need to move beyond institutional affiliations in the interest of preserving shrinking spaces for dissent, and the absence of protocol in the investigation.

The space for dialogue regarding the actions of the army in Kashmir, the anti-beef agenda, moral policing to name just a few issues has been fast shrinking amid perceptions that the government will seek to retaliate. Comparisons to the Emergency, while perhaps hyperbolic, are nevertheless worrisome as they are indicative of the beginnings of a trend towards heightened censorship in India. The defensiveness of the ruling party in the face of criticism has been on the rise in the past few years, and the NDTV has faced unexpected consequences for the second time in a year, following its24-hour blackout in November 2016.

The recent raids, in keeping with this trend, inspire a feeling of unease and worry regarding what they might foretell.

Read more here:

In India, Raids Targeting a Prominent News Agency Spark Censorship Fears - The Diplomat

LETTER: Wrong lesson learned by yearbook censorship – Asbury Park Press

Posted on by

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

What teacher in Wall will want to do anything more than teach their classes?

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

1:48 p.m. ET June 20, 2017

High school yearbooks that featured digitally altered photographs of students supporting President Donald Trump will be reissued.

So, Wall taxpayers will be footing the bill for new yearbooks because some kid decided to wear a Trump T-shirt for his yearbook photo and it was edited because someone on the yearbook staff thought it was inappropriate? (Trump censorship: Wall H.S. to get new yearbooks, June 15).

First of all, what student would wear a T-shirt for his yearbook photo?

But he does learn a lesson. If he stomps his feet and holds his breath he can get daddy to rally round the poor choices. Maybe the lesson should have been, Sorry Charlie. You made a poor choice in your attire. Live with it.

What teacher in Wall will want to do anything more than teach their classes? Why take a chance that some misguided youth and his righteous dad will raise a stink and tag some inflammatory description on the decision. There is censorship in schools every day. Its part of the learning process.

Chuck Person

Barnegat

Read or Share this story: http://on.app.com/2tK2mX7

More here:

LETTER: Wrong lesson learned by yearbook censorship - Asbury Park Press

LETTER: Defense of censorship was nauseating – Richmond County Daily Journal

Posted on by

To the editor:

As we are in the season of graduation, I hope you will allow this retired educator to reflect on the Early College yearbook fiasco.

First, let me address the nauseating defense of censorship offered up by John Robich (Richmond County Daily Journal, June 3-4). His attempts to ingratiate the reader by extolling the virtues of the Early College at the expense of censorship is an abysmal failure. He delights that school officials put down the yearbook as if free speech were a rabid dog.

Mr. Robich reinforces his moralistic rant stating the potential threat of information that neither he or any of the public had access to, yet he claims that information potentially inflammatory, controversial and offensive.

Sir, you need a refresher course in Constitutional Law 101.

His most laughable observation goads the reader to be concerned over how posterity might perceive the yearbook in question. Yes, Mr. Robich, the students will remember the yearbook, but not for the reasons you so smugly suggest.

They will recall how obsessed school officials used collusion to steal the work of a year of collaboration. Where are they confiscated books? Have they been destroyed? At least the Nazis burned their books in public. Oh, that one copy still copy still exists to be downloaded to the freedom of the internet.

In his arrogantly condescending tone, Mr. Robich admonishes those who disagree with him to consider the big picture.

Yes, we see the big picture. The educational caste system is alive and well in Richmond County. Do you really think our citizens will acquiesce to such thinking?

At every turn, he insults the intelligence of the readers ability to make their own moral choices. That Principal Waddell made the right and morally good decision would make it astounding that students and parents can make these choices at all! Its a sure bet that next years publication will be closely scrutinizedoopssanitized.

Our superintendents failure to publicly weigh in on the crisis has been noted. Her silence speaks volumes. With the national spotlight on our school system, Dr. Goodman missed an opportunity for transparency in her administration.

Some would want to maintain the status quo. Sorry folks. Pandoras Box has been opened and things will never be the same again.

In recent months, we have witnessed massive student walkouts in our state over social issues. It is to their credit our students chose not to disrupt their education.

Are you listening administrators? Who are the adults in this scenario?

Congratulations to the graduates of Early College. Despite the despicable act of betrayal perpetrated on you, you still hold the promise of a democratic society. Never let anyone or group of people put braces on your brains. My prayer of you, in the words of one spiritual revolutionary, is to continue to ask, seek and knock all the days of your life.

I applaud the Daily Journal for keeping the issue in the forefront. Although our school officials are on report, you can be sure you have not heard the last of their draconian antics.

Vigilance is the price we pay for freedom. I hope Richmond Countys motto Fiat Justicia, (Let Justice Be Done) will prevail in the end.

Eddie Russell

Rockingham

http://www.yourdailyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/web1_letter_web-6.jpg

.

Read the rest here:

LETTER: Defense of censorship was nauseating - Richmond County Daily Journal

Senate hearing examines free speech on college campuses after incidents at UC-Berkeley, Middlebury – Washington Post

Posted on by

U.S.senators focused Tuesday on the issues surrounding free speech on college campuses, as someexpressed concerns that voices have been suppressed because they have been deemed offensive, and othersraised questions about how to balance First Amendment rightswith safety.

There is no point in having a student body on campus if competing ideas are not exchanged and analyzed and respected by each other, said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The committee examined the issue at a Tuesday hearing titled Free Speech 101: The Assault on the First Amendment on College Campuses.

Here's a look at some of the protests in the Berkeley, Calif., area in recent months. (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)

When a hecklers veto succeeded, what effect did that have on the campus climate, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) asked two college students at the hearing. Some states allow guns on college campuses, said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). Doesnt that make the issue more complicated for university presidents?

On too many college campuses, Grassley said, free speech appears to be sacrificed at the altar of political correctness. Cruz, meanwhile, commented that too many institutions quietly roll over at the threat of violence.

Its tragic what is happening at so many American universities, Cruz said. Where college administrators and faculties have become complicit in functioning essentially as speech police.

The committee heard from a panel that included both students and other experts. Among them: Zachary Wood, a student at Williams College who is involved in an organization that brings provocative speakers to the Massachusetts campus; Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Frederick Lawrence, a former university president who is secretary and chief executive of the Phi Beta Kappa Society.

The challenges of free expression on our campuses have never seemed greater, Lawrence said. I know this from my years as a law school dean, and as a university president.

These challenges, he continued, come in all directions and from all contexts.

They come from the left, and they come from the right, Lawrence said. They involve students, they involve faculty, they involve outside speakers.

Students at Middlebury College in Vermont protested an author who has been called a white nationalist, causing the college to move a planned lecture to another room on campus. (Will DiGravio)

The hearing followed high-profile incidents involving free-speech issues on colleges campuses across the country. In April, a scuffle broke out during protestsof an appearance from Richard Spencer, the white nationalist who came to speak on the Alabama campus.

A few months ago at Middlebury College, an angry mob swarmed Charles Murray, an author and conservative scholar, after he attempted to deliver a lecture at the private liberal arts college in Vermont.

At the University of California at Berkeley, a speech from conservative commentator Ann Coulter was canceledin April, after concerns about protests growing violent. There was also unrest on Berkeleys campus in February over aplanned appearance from Milo Yiannopoulos, the former Breitbart writer.

The University of California at Berkeley canceled a talk by inflammatory Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos and put the campus on lockdown after intense protests broke out on Feb. 1. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

What brings us here today is that time and again, speech is being effectively banned on campuses because the speaker has ideas that offend, said Floyd Abrams, senior counsel at the firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel and another witness. Thats the problem. It does not arise in the main because university administrations are seeking to suppress speech, it arises more often than not because students find it intolerable to have certain speakers appear and certain ideas expressed with which they disagree and they find offensive or even outrageous.

At the hearing Tuesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) noted that universities deal with speaking events that could present a danger or threat to the campus community, particularly those that draw outside groups of protesters. Colleges dont always have the resources to deal with those types of situations, she said, and run the risk of harm.

I know of no effort at Berkeley, of the University of California, to stifle student speech. None, she said. And if there is a specific effort, I would certainly appreciate it if people brought that to my attention. But I do believe that the university has a right to protect its students from demonstrations once they become acts of violence.

Read More: Milos appearance at Berkeley led to riots. He vows to return this fall for a week-long free-speech

Ann Coulter finds an unlikely ally in her free-speech spat with Berkeley: Bill Maher

Berkeley gave birth to the Free Speech Movement in the 1960s. Now, conservatives are demanding it include them.

Follow this link:

Senate hearing examines free speech on college campuses after incidents at UC-Berkeley, Middlebury - Washington Post

The Supreme Court gives the country some necessary guidance on free speech – Washington Post

Posted on by

THE UNITED STATES is engaged just now in a freewheeling debate about freewheeling debate. Or, to put it more precisely, about how freewheeling debate should normally be. The struggle is being waged across various battlegrounds college campuses, social media, New York theater, even the air-conditioned offices in which federal employees decide whether to protect trademarks, such as that of Washingtons National Football League franchise.

Now comes the Supreme Court with a strong statement in favor of free speech, to include speech that many find offensive. With the support of all eight justices who participated in the case (new Justice Neil M. Gorsuch being the exception), the court struck down a 71-year-old law requiring the Patent and Trademark Office to deny registration to brands that may disparage people or bring them into contemp[t] or disrepute. The ruling means that a dance-rock band may henceforth call itself the Slants on the same legal basis that, say, Mick Jaggers bunch uses the Rolling Stones even though many Asian Americans find the term derogatory and demeaning.

The justices were obviously, and properly, influenced by the fact that the Asian American members of the Slants took the name in a bid to reclaim that slur as something more positive and prideful. To apply the existing disparagement proviso in the statute despite the bands expressive intent would not merely have exercised government control over government expression, implicit in trademark registration, as the Obama administration argued when the court heard the case shortly before Inauguration Day this year. It would, as the justices ruled, have put the government in the business of picking and choosing among points of view, a role that the court has repeatedly forbidden it to perform.

To be sure, the opinion for the court by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a staunch conservative, came accompanied by a concurring opinion in which Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and three liberal colleagues, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, set out doctrinal nuances. But what was striking about all the opinions Monday was the strength with which every member of the court embraced the First Amendment, strongly enough to protect even speech that many people legitimately find hateful or offensive. The proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate, Mr. Alito wrote. The concurring opinion followed with the rationale underlying that jurisprudence: A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all.

This is strong medicine, both in terms of the support it offers free speech and in terms of what it requires of those who do take offense at expressions likely to enjoy court protection as a result of this opinion specifically the Washington football teams name, which was also the subject of a suit against its trademark. The answer, in our view, is to redouble all lawful efforts to get that name changed, even if a federal lawsuit probably cant be one of them. As the courts decision reminds us, constitutional and decent are not the same thing.

View post:

The Supreme Court gives the country some necessary guidance on free speech - Washington Post

Are colleges silencing free speech? Senators want to know – Palm Beach Post

Posted on by

Protesters in black masks started fires and damaged property in an attempt to stop controversial speaker Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking at the University of California-Berkeley in February.

It is situations like those that have U.S. senators on the Judiciary Committee discussing free speech on college campuses.

In the past several months, universities have canceled speakers after threats of violence.

Many of the speakers have been conservative, prompting concern among Republican senators about universities potentially silencing controversial voices.

That is an open invitation to discriminate based on viewpoint, Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, said shes worried universities lack equipment and security to protect students from violence at speeches.

I do believe that the university has a right to protect its students from demonstrations once they become acts of violence, Feinstein said.

Zachary Wood, a student at Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts, testified in front of the committee.

He said it is important to have your beliefs challenged.

Instead of nurturing thoughtful debates of controversial topics, many college educators and administrators discourage free debate by shielding students from offensive views, Wood said. Yet one persons offensive view is another persons viewpoint.

See the original post here:

Are colleges silencing free speech? Senators want to know - Palm Beach Post

Sen. Feinstein is ready to accept the ‘heckler’s veto’ of free speech on college campuses – Hot Air

Posted on by

The Senate held a hearing today on free speech on college campuses. There was a disagreement among the witnesses about how far campus administrators should go to protect speech in the face of determined efforts to shut it down. Law Professor Eugene Volokh argued that authorities must protect speech lest those trying to use the hecklers veto learn that they can silence their opponents by making threats. But Sen. Dianne Feinstein disagreed, suggesting protection of the right to speak could result in another Kent State shooting.

After reading aloud the First Amendment in her opening remarks, Sen. Feinstein said, The fact of the matter is that there are certain occasions on which individuals assemble not to act peaceably, but to act as destructively as they possibly can. She went on to say, When you have a set group of people that come to create a disturbance, some of them even wearing masks or wearing certain clothing, what do you do? Feinstein said police arent always equipped to handle this situation making it a horse of another color. She concluded, I do believe that the university has a right to protect its students from demonstrations once they become acts of violence.

Professor Eugene Volokh disagreed with her during his testimony.There are of course times, as Senator Feinstein pointed out, that the University isnt trying to suppress speech because it finds it offensive but because enough people who are willing to stoop to violence find it offensive that there is then the threat of a violent reaction to such speech, Volokh said. He continued, But I tend to agree with Senator Cruzs view that that kind of a hecklers veto should not be allowed.

The question was asked When you have a set group of people who come to create a disturbance, what do you do? I think the answer is to make sure they dont create a disturbance and to threaten them with punishment, meaningful punishment, if they do create a disturbance. And not to essentially let them have their way by suppressing the speech that they are trying to suppress.

One of the basics of psychology that I think weve learned, and all of us who are parents I think have learned it very first hand, is behavior that is rewarded is repeated. When thugs learn that all they need to do in order to suppress speech is to threaten violence then therell be more such threats from all over the political spectrum. And I think the solution to that is to say that the speech will go on and if that means bringing in more law enforcement and making sure that those people who do act violently or otherwise physically disruptively that they be punished.

A few minutes later, Sen. Dick Durbin pushed back by suggesting that college administrators had to consider the possible threats posed to campus by people with concealed weapons:

A few minutes later, Sen. Feinstein suggested that public campuses might not have the resources need to protect speech from the hecklers veto. How should a university handle this, Feinstein asked the panel. Volokh responded saying, If we are in a position where our police departments are unable to protect free speechthen yes indeed we are in a very bad position.

Professor, let me just understand what youre saying, Feinstein interrupted. She continued, No matter who comes, no matter what disturbance the University has to be prepared to handle itTo me the extraordinary circumstance is when people come in black uniforms and hit other people over the head.

Volokh replied, Right, and that cannot be enough to justify suppression of those who they came to try to suppress. As Volokh argued that protection from violence was a fundamental role of government, Feinstein replied, You dont think we learned a lesson at Kent State way back when? This is a reference to an incident that took place in 1970 when national guardsmen opened fire on Vietnam war protesters, killing four people.

Professor Frederick Lawrence stepped in saying, I think the way to start with this is with a strong presumption in favor of the speech, particularly if its speech thats coming from a student group who has invited somebody.

Sen. Feinstein replied, No matter how radical, offensive, biased, prejudiced,fascist the program is? You should find a way to accommodate it.

Lawrence replied, If were talking about the substance of the program, not the danger and credible threats but the substance of the program, then yes.

Feinstein genuinely seems to be missing the concept of the First Amendment. Of course, speech isnt allowed or disallowed based on content. How does a Senator even suggest such a thing? And frankly, the idea that the campus shouldnt be expected to protect speech on the grounds that it might incite others to violence is an endorsement of the hecklers veto. Its saying that as long as opponents of speech are willing to resort to threats, they can silence their opponents. Thats a horrible message for any American to endorse. Im not surprised to hear this sort of thing coming from Evergreen College students, but I am surprised to hear it coming from a Senator.

You can see Professor Volokhs statement on free speech at around 1:10:00 into this clip. Feinsteins exchange with Professor Lawrence comes around 1:46:00.

Follow this link:

Sen. Feinstein is ready to accept the 'heckler's veto' of free speech on college campuses - Hot Air

Free Speech for Sex OffendersFree Speech for Sex Offenders – Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Posted on by

Wall Street Journal (subscription)
Free Speech for Sex OffendersFree Speech for Sex Offenders
Wall Street Journal (subscription)
Free Speech for Sex OffendersFree Speech for Sex Offenders. A hard case that makes good First Amendment law in the internet age.A hard case that makes good First Amendment law in the internet age. June 20, 2017 7:09 p.m. ET ...

and more »

Read more here:

Free Speech for Sex OffendersFree Speech for Sex Offenders - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

5 NATO Weapons Russia Doesn’t Want to Face – Scout

Posted on by

When it comes to a potential war between NATO and Russia over the Ukraineor some other hotspot, everyone's attention is focused on the capabilities of U.S. versus Russian weapons.

But wait a minute. The U.S. is only one member of NATO, and it happens to be one of the members that isn't even on the European continent. Should NATO and Russia come to blows, it is certain that European forces will go into battle alongside--perhaps--American troops.

This story was originally published by The National Interest

If this scenario happens, here are five NATO weapons Russia should fear:

Britain's Challenger 2 tank

Backbone of the UK's tank force,the Challenger 2[3]would be in the forefront should Britain commit heavy armor to a European conflict against Russia.

The Challenger 2 is heavily protected with Dorchester (another name forChobhamarmor) and armed with a 120-millimeter cannon. It has an off-road speed of about 25 miles per hour.

Given that the most advanced tanks in the world haven't really faced each other (the First Gulf War was 25 years ago, and even Israel hasn't fought a tank battle against Russian-made armor in more than 30 years), predicting how a Challenger 2 would fare against Russian tanks would be conjecture. Weighing in at 63 tons, the Challenger 2 is certainly heavier than the various models of the 40- to 50-tonT-72sthat Russia fields, including theT-72B3and the T-90.

What this means in terms of combat performance is unclear. What is clear that should British and Russian forces come to blows, Russia would be facing a well-armed, well-armored and sophisticated main battle tank.

But as usual, the biggest enemy of the British military is Her Majesty's Treasury. Budget cutscompelled Britain to slash its tank force by 40 percent in 2010, leaving Britain with just 227 Challenger2s[4]. Plans to modernize the Challenger 2 and extend its lifespan, including possibly replacing its rifled cannon with a smoothbore model,are up in the air[5].

Russia may end up confronting deadly British tanks, but not very many.

Germany's Type 212 submarine

If diesel submarines scare the heck out of the U.S. Navy,the Russian Navy[6]can't be looking forward to dealing withGermany's ultra-quiet Type 212 sub[7].

The 1,500-ton Type 212 has an air-independent propulsion (AIP) system that uses hydrogen-oxygen Polymer Electrolyte Membrane fuel cells, which enable the sub to remain submerged for long periods. While German U-boat in World War II moved at a crawl while submerged, the Type 212 travels underwater at a remarkable 20 knots.

The Type 212 is armed with wire-guidedDM2A4torpedoes, as well asWASS184 andBlacksharktorpedoes. It is scheduled to be equipped withIDASmissiles, fired from the sub's torpedo tubes that can hit air, land or sea targets.

It remains to be seen how much effect German subs would have on a conflict with Russia: Russia's Crimea and Ukraine shows of force have been more toward the Black Sea than the Baltic. But should Russia be tempted to go after the Baltic States or Poland, and use its navy in the process, the Type212swould be a force to be reckoned with.

EurofighterTyphoon

Comparisons of NATO and Russianairpowerinevitably degenerate into "my F-22 is better than your Su-35." However, since only the U.S. uses the F-22, it seems more probable that Russian pilots would be facingTyphoons[8]instead of Raptors.

The Typhoon is used by the German and British air forces, which are the NATO members more likely to encounter the Russians in Eastern Europe, and the Italian and Spanish air forces, which are not. Though it is has some stealth features,the Typhoon is more of adogfighterthan the F-22[9].

Armed with a 27-millimeter cannon and a variety of missiles, including the Sidewinder,AMRAAMand Meteor for air-to-air combat and Taurus and Storm Shadow for air-to-ground targets, theEurofightershould prove a capable opponent. Pitting it against highly maneuverable Russian fighters such as the Su-35 would make for an interesting dogfight.

EurocopterTiger

Smaller than the U.S. and British AH-64 Apache and about half the weight,theEurocopterTiger[10]is a Franco-German project that entered service in 1991. It is used by France, Germany and Italy as well as Australia.

With a speed of about 181 miles per hour, various versions of the Tiger are armed with Hellfire, Spike,PARS3 and HOT 3 anti-tank missiles, Mistral air-to-air missiles, and air-to-ground rockets.

The Tiger has seen limited combat during French and German operations in Afghanistan and Libya. But should hostilities erupt between NATO and Russia, the Tiger will be stalking Russian tanks.

Israel's Spike Missile

Why is an Israeli weapon on a list of deadly NATO hardware?Because the Spike[11]is used by numerous NATO members, including Belgium, Britain, Croatia, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.

The 31-pound Spike is a fiber-optic wire-guided anti-tank missile with a tandem warhead that uses two shaped charges to first detonate a tank's reactive armor, and then penetrate the vehicle's own armor. Available in short, medium and long-range and extended range versions, the various Spikes can hit targets at ranges from 800 meters to 8 kilometers.

The Russians have had much experience in pitting their tanks against Israeli weapons, usually with unfavorable results. A NATO-Russia conflict would test whether this still holds true.

This story was originally published by The National Interest

Michael Peck[12]is a contributing writer at Foreign Policy and a writer forWar is Boring[13]. Follow him on Twitter:@Mipeck1[14].

This first appeared in 2014 and is being reposted due to reader interest.

The rest is here:

5 NATO Weapons Russia Doesn't Want to Face - Scout

NATO-Kosovo Cooperation – HuffPost

Posted on by

The Kosovo Security Force (KSF) should be upgraded into a full-standing army and integrated into NATOs Partnership for Peace (PfP), which readies countries for full NATO membership.

The KSF was created soon after Kosovo declared independence in 2008. It is a small, lightly armed security and civil defense force akin to a national guard. It includes 2,500 members, equipped with rifles and lightweight armored vehicles. The KSFs mission is limited to crisis response; responding to natural disasters; conducting search and rescue; disposing of explosive ordnance; and controlling hazardous materials. The KSF also does fire-fighting and other humanitarian tasks.

The KSF already cooperates with NATO. It was mentored by KFOR, NATOs international peacekeeping force for Kosovo. It also receives assistance from the NATO Liaison and Advisory Team, building capacity to bring KSF in line with NATO standards.

A new and improved KSF would be a security asset. It could participate in NATO peacekeeping deployment to Afghanistan. It could also provide de-mining expertise to UN Mine Action Centers.

The United States has so far opposed turning the KSF into a national army. It worries that creation of a Kosovo army could disrupt the uneasy peace between Kosovo and Serbia.

US policy is evolving, reflecting changes on the ground.

Washington is concerned by Serbia stoking the flames of ethnic tension, as well as Russias meddling and provocations.

Serbia feigns commitment to the Belgrade-Pristina Dialogue, while fomenting conflict in Mitrovica, a territory in northern Kosovo where Serbs challenge Kosovos sovereignty through private parallel structures.

Serbia invited a Russian-made train with nationalist images and slogans reading Kosovo is Serbia to travel from Serbia to Mitrovica in January 2017. Serbian politicians threatened military action when the train was stopped at the border.

Belgrade blocks Kosovo from gaining greater global recognition. Serbia and Russia coordinated a campaign to prevent Kosovo from joining UNESCO.

Serbia and Russia have extensive security cooperation. Russia recently transferred fighter jets and other sophisticated weaponry to Serbia, including surface to air missiles. Russia established an intelligence base in Nis as a counter-weight to NATO.

Russia was behind a coup attempt in Montenegro last November, aimed at preventing Montenegro from joining NATO. Two Russians were arrested for coordinating the operation from Serbia and plotting to assassinate Montenegros Prime Minister.

In April, Russias support for ultranationalists in Macedonia almost precipitated a civil war. According to Federica Mogherini, the EUs foreign policy chief, attacking the parliament was intended to spark inter-ethnic strife. Mogherini warned of a geopolitical confrontation with Russia.

There are thousands of US troops at Camp Bondsteel in Ferizaj in Eastern Kosovo. The deployment helps maintain stability and serves as a tripwire against aggression. The United States should make Kosovo a greater priority in its regional security strategy.

Kosovo is a reliable ally. It is strongly pro-American and pro-NATO. Building Kosovos capacity would allow Kosovo to better provide for its own security, complementing KFOR.

Kosovo Serbs reflexively oppose Kosovos cooperation with NATO. They have bitter memories of NATOs intervention in 1999.

Upgrading the KSF into a national army must be done carefully to avoid opening old wounds. It requires a transparent and legal process. The KSF was established in Kosovos constitution. Its status can be changed through a constitutional amendment, with support from two-thirds of the parliament.

Making a serious effort to get Kosovo Serbs on board would send a positive message. While mollifying their concerns, Kosovo Serbs do not have a veto. They must abide by Kosovos decision.

Kosovo Serbs will realize that their interests are served by Kosovos cooperation with NATO, which acts as a deterrent to foreign interference. Russian provocations aimed at causing conflict between Kosovo and Serbia actually put Kosovo Serbs at-risk.

The Western Balkans remain a tinderbox. International order is served through a strong, stable, and sovereign Kosovo.

David L. Phillips is Director of the Program on Peace-building and Rights at Columbia Universitys Institute for the Study of Human Rights. He served as a Senior Adviser for Regional Stability at the European Affairs Bureau of the State Department under President Bill Clinton. He is author of Liberating Kosovo: Coercive Diplomacy and US Intervention.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

View original post here:

NATO-Kosovo Cooperation - HuffPost

NATO Intercepts 32 Russian Warplanes Above Baltic in Just Seven Days – Newsweek

Posted on by

The NATO alliance intercepted 32 Russian military aircraft nearing allied airspace above the Baltic Sea last week, Lithuanias Ministry of Defense announced on Monday.

Between June 12 and 18, allied jets scrambled nine times to identify and escort multiple Russian aircraft, including fighter and bomber jets, at a time of high military traffic in Baltic skies because of the alliances annual drills.

The intercepts were prompted by Russian military flights to and from the Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad and involved a varied range of warplanes, Lithuanias Defense Ministry said in a statement. The number of annual intercepts of Russian aircraft above the Baltic skyrocketed following the collapse of relations between Moscow and the West over events in Ukraine in 2014. Scrambles have remained high since.

Daily Emails and Alerts- Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

Related: Russia and Lithuania lock horns over Soviet billions in reparations

Multiple models of Russias Ilyushin, Sukhoi, Tupolev and Antonov planes made the forays, triggering a response from the Baltic Air Policing mission. Among the intercepts were multiple Su-27 and Su-24 MR fighter jets and Su-34 fighter bomber jets.

Units of all three models formed part of Russias deployment to Syria since its military intervention in 2015.

One Russian air force group over the Baltic attracted attention last week when a convoy consisting of Ilyushin Il-22, Sukhoi Su-24, Sukhoi Su-27, Sukhoi Su-34 and supersonic Tupolev Tu-160 long-range bombers prompted three European air forces to escort them through different segments of their trip, fearing they would violate national airspace. The scrambles involved nonaligned states Finland and Sweden as well as NATO ally Denmark.

The U.S. Army in Europe holds its annual series of defense drills with local allies in the Baltic region every summer. The exercises, called Saber Strike, last for almost the entire duration of June, while Russia is planning its own set of drills in the region with nearby ally Belarus for September.

Lithuania has complained that Russias propensity to announce a relatively small number of troops will take part in such a drill, before deciding to effectively increase its size tenfold closer to the date, is evidence that the drill is a simulated attack on NATO.

Go here to read the rest:

NATO Intercepts 32 Russian Warplanes Above Baltic in Just Seven Days - Newsweek